The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.

The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. “I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong,” he said.

Snowden will go down in history as one of America’s most consequential whistleblowers, alongside Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning. He is responsible for handing over material from one of the world’s most secretive organisations – the NSA.

In a note accompanying the first set of documents he provided, he wrote: “I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions,” but “I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant.”

Despite his determination to be publicly unveiled, he repeatedly insisted that he wants to avoid the media spotlight. “I don’t want public attention because I don’t want the story to be about me. I want it to be about what the US government is doing.”

He does not fear the consequences of going public, he said, only that doing so will distract attention from the issues raised by his disclosures. “I know the media likes to personalise political debates, and I know the government will demonise me.”

Despite these fears, he remained hopeful his outing will not divert attention from the substance of his disclosures. “I really want the focus to be on these documents and the debate which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in.” He added: “My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.”

He has had “a very comfortable life” that included a salary of roughly $200,000, a girlfriend with whom he shared a home in Hawaii, a stable career, and a family he loves. “I’m willing to sacrifice all of that because I can’t in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.”

‘I am not afraid, because this is the choice I’ve made’

Three weeks ago, Snowden made final preparations that resulted in last week’s series of blockbuster news stories. At the NSA office in Hawaii where he was working, he copied the last set of documents he intended to disclose.

He then advised his NSA supervisor that he needed to be away from work for “a couple of weeks” in order to receive treatment for epilepsy, a condition he learned he suffers from after a series of seizures last year.

As he packed his bags, he told his girlfriend that he had to be away for a few weeks, though he said he was vague about the reason. “That is not an uncommon occurrence for someone who has spent the last decade working in the intelligence world.”

On May 20, he boarded a flight to Hong Kong, where he has remained ever since. He chose the city because “they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent”, and because he believed that it was one of the few places in the world that both could and would resist the dictates of the US government.

In the three weeks since he arrived, he has been ensconced in a hotel room. “I’ve left the room maybe a total of three times during my entire stay,” he said. It is a plush hotel and, what with eating meals in his room too, he has run up big bills.

He is deeply worried about being spied on. He lines the door of his hotel room with pillows to prevent eavesdropping. He puts a large red hood over his head and laptop when entering his passwords to prevent any hidden cameras from detecting them.

Though that may sound like paranoia to some, Snowden has good reason for such fears. He worked in the US intelligence world for almost a decade. He knows that the biggest and most secretive surveillance organisation in America, the NSA, along with the most powerful government on the planet, is looking for him.

Since the disclosures began to emerge, he has watched television and monitored the internet, hearing all the threats and vows of prosecution emanating from Washington.

And he knows only too well the sophisticated technology available to them and how easy it will be for them to find him. The NSA police and other law enforcement officers have twice visited his home in Hawaii and already contacted his girlfriend, though he believes that may have been prompted by his absence from work, and not because of suspicions of any connection to the leaks.

“All my options are bad,” he said. The US could begin extradition proceedings against him, a potentially problematic, lengthy and unpredictable course for Washington. Or the Chinese government might whisk him away for questioning, viewing him as a useful source of information. Or he might end up being grabbed and bundled into a plane bound for US territory.

“Yes, I could be rendered by the CIA. I could have people come after me. Or any of the third-party partners. They work closely with a number of other nations. Or they could pay off the Triads. Any of their agents or assets,” he said.

“We have got a CIA station just up the road – the consulate here in Hong Kong – and I am sure they are going to be busy for the next week. And that is a concern I will live with for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be.”

Having watched the Obama administration prosecute whistleblowers at a historically unprecedented rate, he fully expects the US government to attempt to use all its weight to punish him. “I am not afraid,” he said calmly, “because this is the choice I’ve made.”

He predicts the government will launch an investigation and “say I have broken the Espionage Act and helped our enemies, but that can be used against anyone who points out how massive and invasive the system has become”.

The only time he became emotional during the many hours of interviews was when he pondered the impact his choices would have on his family, many of whom work for the US government. “The only thing I fear is the harmful effects on my family, who I won’t be able to help any more. That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said, his eyes welling up with tears.

‘You can’t wait around for someone else to act’

Snowden did not always believe the US government posed a threat to his political values. He was brought up originally in Elizabeth City, North Carolina. His family moved later to Maryland, near the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade.

By his own admission, he was not a stellar student. In order to get the credits necessary to obtain a high school diploma, he attended a community college in Maryland, studying computing, but never completed the coursework. (He later obtained his GED.)

In 2003, he enlisted in the US army and began a training program to join the Special Forces. Invoking the same principles that he now cites to justify his leaks, he said: “I wanted to fight in the Iraq war because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression”.

He recounted how his beliefs about the war’s purpose were quickly dispelled. “Most of the people training us seemed pumped up about killing Arabs, not helping anyone,” he said. After he broke both his legs in a training accident, he was discharged.

After that, he got his first job in an NSA facility, working as a security guard for one of the agency’s covert facilities at the University of Maryland. From there, he went to the CIA, where he worked on IT security. His understanding of the internet and his talent for computer programming enabled him to rise fairly quickly for someone who lacked even a high school diploma.

By 2007, the CIA stationed him with diplomatic cover in Geneva, Switzerland. His responsibility for maintaining computer network security meant he had clearance to access a wide array of classified documents.

That access, along with the almost three years he spent around CIA officers, led him to begin seriously questioning the rightness of what he saw.

He described as formative an incident in which he claimed CIA operatives were attempting to recruit a Swiss banker to obtain secret banking information. Snowden said they achieved this by purposely getting the banker drunk and encouraging him to drive home in his car. When the banker was arrested for drunk driving, the undercover agent seeking to befriend him offered to help, and a bond was formed that led to successful recruitment.

“Much of what I saw in Geneva really disillusioned me about how my government functions and what its impact is in the world,” he says. “I realised that I was part of something that was doing far more harm than good.”

He said it was during his CIA stint in Geneva that he thought for the first time about exposing government secrets. But, at the time, he chose not to for two reasons.

First, he said: “Most of the secrets the CIA has are about people, not machines and systems, so I didn’t feel comfortable with disclosures that I thought could endanger anyone”. Secondly, the election of Barack Obama in 2008 gave him hope that there would be real reforms, rendering disclosures unnecessary.

He left the CIA in 2009 in order to take his first job working for a private contractor that assigned him to a functioning NSA facility, stationed on a military base in Japan. It was then, he said, that he “watched as Obama advanced the very policies that I thought would be reined in”, and as a result, “I got hardened.”

The primary lesson from this experience was that “you can’t wait around for someone else to act. I had been looking for leaders, but I realised that leadership is about being the first to act.”

Over the next three years, he learned just how all-consuming the NSA’s surveillance activities were, claiming “they are intent on making every conversation and every form of behaviour in the world known to them”.

He described how he once viewed the internet as “the most important invention in all of human history”. As an adolescent, he spent days at a time “speaking to people with all sorts of views that I would never have encountered on my own”.

But he believed that the value of the internet, along with basic privacy, is being rapidly destroyed by ubiquitous surveillance. “I don’t see myself as a hero,” he said, “because what I’m doing is self-interested: I don’t want to live in a world where there’s no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity.”

Once he reached the conclusion that the NSA’s surveillance net would soon be irrevocable, he said it was just a matter of time before he chose to act. “What they’re doing” poses “an existential threat to democracy”, he said.

A matter of principle

As strong as those beliefs are, there still remains the question: why did he do it? Giving up his freedom and a privileged lifestyle? “There are more important things than money. If I were motivated by money, I could have sold these documents to any number of countries and gotten very rich.”

For him, it is a matter of principle. “The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to,” he said.

His allegiance to internet freedom is reflected in the stickers on his laptop: “I support Online Rights: Electronic Frontier Foundation,” reads one. Another hails the online organisation offering anonymity, the Tor Project.

Asked by reporters to establish his authenticity to ensure he is not some fantasist, he laid bare, without hesitation, his personal details, from his social security number to his CIA ID and his expired diplomatic passport. There is no shiftiness. Ask him about anything in his personal life and he will answer.

He is quiet, smart, easy-going and self-effacing. A master on computers, he seemed happiest when talking about the technical side of surveillance, at a level of detail comprehensible probably only to fellow communication specialists. But he showed intense passion when talking about the value of privacy and how he felt it was being steadily eroded by the behaviour of the intelligence services.

His manner was calm and relaxed but he has been understandably twitchy since he went into hiding, waiting for the knock on the hotel door. A fire alarm goes off. “That has not happened before,” he said, betraying anxiety wondering if was real, a test or a CIA ploy to get him out onto the street.

Strewn about the side of his bed are his suitcase, a plate with the remains of room-service breakfast, and a copy of Angler, the biography of former vice-president Dick Cheney.

Ever since last week’s news stories began to appear in the Guardian, Snowden has vigilantly watched TV and read the internet to see the effects of his choices. He seemed satisfied that the debate he longed to provoke was finally taking place.

He lay, propped up against pillows, watching CNN’s Wolf Blitzer ask a discussion panel about government intrusion if they had any idea who the leaker was. From 8,000 miles away, the leaker looked on impassively, not even indulging in a wry smile.

Snowden said that he admires both Ellsberg and Manning, but argues that there is one important distinction between himself and the army private, whose trial coincidentally began the week Snowden’s leaks began to make news.

“I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest,” he said. “There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn’t turn over, because harming people isn’t my goal. Transparency is.”

He purposely chose, he said, to give the documents to journalists whose judgment he trusted about what should be public and what should remain concealed.

As for his future, he is vague. He hoped the publicity the leaks have generated will offer him some protection, making it “harder for them to get dirty”.

He views his best hope as the possibility of asylum, with Iceland – with its reputation of a champion of internet freedom – at the top of his list. He knows that may prove a wish unfulfilled.

But after the intense political controversy he has already created with just the first week’s haul of stories, “I feel satisfied that this was all worth it. I have no regrets.”

Google chief Larry Page branded Internet spying a threat to freedom and called for governments to be more revealing about what they try to find out about people’s online activities.

“We understand that the US and other governments need to take action to protect their citizens’ safety – including sometimes by using surveillance,” Page said in a blog post yesterday.

“But the level of secrecy around the current legal procedures undermines the freedoms we all cherish.”

Page put his personal stamp on the California-based Internet giant’s denial that it opened any doors for US intelligence agencies to mine data from its servers.

Google and other technology firms on Thursday were adamant that they did not knowingly take part in a secret program called PRISM that gave the National Security Agency (NSA) and the FBI back doors into servers at major Internet companies.

“We have not joined any program that would give the US government or any other government direct access to our servers,” Page said.

“Indeed, the US government does not have direct access or a ‘back door’ to the information stored in our data centers,” he continued. “We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.”

The program was reportedly set up in 2007 and has grown “exponentially” to the point where it is now the most prolific contributor to President Barack Obama’s Daily Brief, the US leader’s top-secret daily intelligence briefing.

Some of the biggest firms in Silicon Valley were involved in the program, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Apple, PalTalk, AOL, Skype and YouTube, reports said.

However, Internet titans denied providing intelligence agencies with back doors to networks and held firm that they only cooperated with legal “front door” requests for information.

“This episode confirms what we have long believed – there needs to be a more transparent approach,” Page said.

Google routinely publishes transparency reports listing numbers of requests for user data by governments and how they were handled.

WASHINGTON: The US government has lowered to 15 the age at which girls can buy the morning-after contraceptive pill without a prescription. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Tuesday announced to approve a contraceptive known as Plan B or popular as “morning after pill” for all women 15 and older.The announcement is expected to stir the controversy among conservatives who consider it another form of abortion. In a statement, the FDA said the approval of Plan B One-Step for use without a prescription by women 15 years of age and older is based on an actual use study and label comprehension data submitted by Teva showing that women age 15 and older understood that the product was not for routine use and would not protect them against sexually-transmitted diseases.

These data also established that Plan B One-Step could be used properly within this age group without the intervention of a health care provider. “Research has shown that access to emergency contraceptive products has the potential to further decrease the rate of unintended pregnancies in the US,” said FDA commissioner Margaret A Hamburg. “The data reviewed by the agency demonstrated that women 15 years of age and older were able to understand how Plan B One-Step works, how to use it properly, and that it does not prevent the transmission of a sexually transmitted disease,” Hamburg said.

FDA said because the product will not protect a woman from HIV or AIDS or other sexually-transmitted diseases, it is important that young women who are sexually active remember to see a health care provider for routine checkups.

The rage in Parliament is off target. Walmart’s disclosure of its lobbying fee in the US Senate should trigger a different debate in India, says Shaili Chopra

December 13, 2012, Issue 51 Volume 9

Illustration: Anand Naorem

WALMART’S DISCLOSURE on the fees it paid to lobby for opening up the Indian market created an uninformed and noisy debate in Parliament. The notion that allowing Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail would be the only stumbling block for Walmart’s entry into India quickly evaporated as proceeding in both Houses were disrupted for two straight days because of this disclosure report. As the time of its entry into India gathers pace, any piece of news to do with the company is being greeted with protests.

Earlier this week, the multinational retail giant disclosed in a report to the US Senate that it spent $25 million over the past three years on lobbying, including on issues related to “enhanced market access for investment in India”. Opposition members picked on this number and stalled Parliament, claiming lobbying was illegal and accused the government of taking “bribes” for pushing Walmart’s entry into India. BJP members demanded a probe into the matter. To the surprise of many, the government agreed to an inquiry into Walmart’s lobbying practices.

“This disclosure has nothing to do with political or governmental contacts with Indian officials,” says a Bharti-Walmart spokesperson. “It shows that our business interest in India was discussed with US government officials along with 50 or more other topics during a three-month period. Naturally, our Washington office had discussions with the US government officials about a range of trade and investment issues that impact our businesses in that country and worldwide, and disclosed this in accordance with the law.”

A look at the facts will help us understand better the legality of lobbying. For a start, though it is true that Walmart did pay lobbying firms to push for retail reforms in India, it is also true that it voluntarily disclosed this information. In America, lobbying is a valid practice, a right protected under the US constitution. Therefore, to say that lobbying equals bribery is an outlandish assumption. Just because there are no laws in India regulating lobbying to influence policymakers does not make it illegal. You have laws to make an act illegal, not having a law doesn’t make it otherwise. It is wrong to say Walmart bribed its way into India when there are no facts to prove so, although it may be the right time to address long pending issues around disclosures and lobbying in the country.

How should industry or individuals in a democracy try and convince policymakers of a particular position if not by lobbying? Unlike in the US, where the constitution allows it, we, in India, are running away from lobbying. We cannot expect transparency unless we have a right to approach our elected officials on any issue, in a manner similar to groups such as the CII and FICCI, who work with the government on behalf of corporate India, and with the rest of the world on behalf of India. In the US, such groups would have to register as lobbyists.

“Lobbying is often viewed with suspicion since it is confused with fixing,” says Sunil Kant Munjal, Joint MD, Hero Corp. “If it is in the form of advocacy to wean others to your point of view, it is absolutely fine and is an accepted practice worldwide and in India.”

Walmart has been the mascot of the battle between the UPA and its political opponents, who have been anti-reform in retail, their argument being it will hurt small traders and farmers. There is no doubt that the rollout of FDI will be complex and tedious and this latest controversy is a part of it. But what is also clear is that Walmart will need to rethink how it plans to make the most of India’s push for reforms amidst growing hatred for its brand. For the BJP to translate lobbying into bribery is misleading. What they should highlight is Walmart’s investigation of its Indian officials under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). They are more likely to find some ammunition there. Instead, they are confusing the two issues.

The company has undertaken a detailed investigation of its own arm in India with regard to internal bribery charges under the FCPA. It has sacked five employees in India, including CFO Pankaj Madan, following the inquiry, and Walmart India CEO & MD Raj Jain — who has just returned from the United States — is under severe pressure to sort out the mess.

The lobbying fee disclosure is not connected to this case at all but with all the wounds suddenly open, anti big box retail segments are making use of every opportunity to show how the entry of Walmart will be detrimental to India’s economy. It, of course, helps to remember that retail is not just Walmart or vice-versa.

Says Ronen Sen, former Indian Ambassador to the United States: “Anywhere you have democratic institutions, this is a registered way of doing things.” Sen further says that Indians have for long engaged in lobbying to push their case.

Unfortunately, in India, lobbying as a term is still associated with Niira Radia and the 2G spectrum scam, acts to be scoffed at, proofs of the unsavoury business- politics nexus. But the truth is, lobbying is undefined, vague and controversial because we have never considered a framework for it or its scope, albeit it has existed in every sphere — corporate, government, NGOs and more. And not one party can be exempted from indulging in it.

Often lauded for his business-friendly ways, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi reportedly hired Apco Worldwide, a public affairs firm, to boost his image internationally. Apco today boasts of a client list that includes names such as former Indian ambassador to the US Lalit Mansingh, US ambassador to India Tim Roemer and many more.

The UPA had also paid a US firm to lobby for the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal. As reported by the Daily Mail in November 2012, Washington-based Barbour Griffith & Rogers (BGR) was hired by the Indian embassy to seek media interviews for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and get Congressional resolutions passed in his support ahead of a US visit.

“What is being said reveals ignorance,” says Sen who was instrumental in the Indo-US nuclear deal. “As India’s ambassador, I have actively engaged in lobbying, wherever it was. For example, when the erstwhile Soviet Union broke up, we had to lobby for a certain point of view to influence opinion. Even during legislations, as foreign envoy, I would get into the language of the legislation and lobby to get it changed with our trade, economic and security agenda in mind.”

INDIAN TECH companies routinely hire lobbying firms to get improved visa rules passed. Reliance, Tata and Nasscom have all used the services of global firms to get a foot in the door in other markets or appointments with governments.

Does an Indian citizen have any basis for seeking answers from those who receive funds? As a nation, we do not believe in disclosure of campaign finance, lobbying funds or even any gifts received by those in office. As a result, our political class gets uncomfortable whenever there is talk of disclosing information voluntarily. Why would any politician or entity disclose that they accepted any money when no such rule makes it incumbent on them to do so?

What this debate has once again exposed is our discomfort with transparency where all institutions — government, corporations or the bureaucracy — will have to deal with an open system of discussion, debate and decision. The government should take this opportunity to seek a basic framework to recognise lobbying as a legitimate industry, which should be given due importance when policies are drafted. At the same time, we need to recognise that excessive influence of money like in the US is not desirable and hence, the need for a set of rules.

We would also do well to acknowledge that lobbyists are professionals, who possess special skills of persuasion and tact to make a point of view acceptable to those who did not approve it. So that we understand that when Walmart spends $25 million on lobbying, it is because it used the best professional help it could to achieve its objectives. Calling it a bribe is not only irresponsible, but also defamatory.